Does a lack of mechanism, for an area of study, make it unscientific or even unlikely to be true?
One problem with pseudoscience is a total lack of explanatory mechanisms, and lack of plausible possibilities for where a mechanism could come from in the future. However, my view is that a lack of mechanism, is not in and of itself, sole evidence of a pseudoscience. So while a lack of mechanism is typical of pseudoscience, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
But what about areas of mainstream science which struggle to produce viable mechanisms. Think of the EMF / brain debate. Here there seem to be many studies showing effects (even under double-blind studies). However, there appears to be no real candidate mechanism capable of mediating it. Is this a case of science should plod on looking....or should we decide the hits are false positives and move on?
At what point, and based on what characteristics would you say one should decide either of these actions?
{note - I use the EMF debate purely as an example - you may have ones of your own}
There ARE pseudoscientific ideas that MIGHT be worth investigating! But who would have the courage to? The punishment is severe.
What is so different between “postulating” a gravitational field because of observed phenomena indicating it exists to (say) postulating any other kind of field because of observed phenomena that might indicate it exists? Is Mike Roll SO “off the mark”,or (less whacky), Rupert Sheldrake?
On reflection Dawkins and Icke’s messages are not SO different!
Just stirring!
M
Lack of a mechanism doesn't necessarily mean something is not worth studying, but pseudoscience usually goes further than that. It is not just a mechanism they lack, but usually there isn't even anything to apply a mechanism to. Take dowsing for example, it is not a problem that no-one knows how it works, it is the fact that there is no actual evidence that it does work. It is entirely possible to have a phenomenon with no known mechanism, or a mechanism with no phenomenon (the development of lasers for example), but when you have neither you can be pretty sure your looking at pseudoscience.
Actually have a peek at The Photoelectric Effect. When it was discovered, effects could be observed in so far as "When we do X to material Y odd things involving electricity happen".
Now it can be explained using (proper) Quantum effects and valence bands.
I think the effect is more important than the mechanism that explains it. As long as something can be measured then understanding its mechanism, whilst desirable, is not required. e.g. gravity.
As Cuddles points out, it’s when both the effect and the mechanism are missing that we’re firmly in the land of pseudoscience and nonsense. Look at the explanations (proposed mechanisms) there are for homeopathy! The real stupidity is not so much that the explanations are usually completely implausible, but that they’re invented to explain something that has no effect.
This is why I don’t like to see skeptics arguing against things like PSI by stating they can’t exist because the known laws of physics don’t allow for it (it’s fallacious reasoning on many levels), because the woos are right: there may be some laws that we haven’t discovered yet etc.
The real reason that PSI can be dismissed is because it can’t be demonstrated and thus requires no need of a mechanism.
.
All good stuff
But there are some effects which are controverisal at present....and one of the arguments against them is the lack of mechanism....hhmmm interesting....
Like?Originally Posted by Dr B
Sounds interesting!
Please share....
M
If the effects are real, the lack of a known mechanism is no argument against their existence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks